Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

35
Blood decisions are now your problem: WT JULY 2025
by raymond frantz in
1. watchtower
2. bible
the following is from the latest study watchtower july 2025, study article 28, paragraph 17:.

each christian must make up his or her own mind about whether to accept or to reject these fractions.

we may find it a challenge to understand this matter fully, but making decisions like this is part of the load that each of us must carry.
aqwsed12345

In the July 2025 Watchtower (Study Article 28, paragraph 17), Jehovah’s Witnesses are told:
“Each Christian must make up his or her own mind about whether to accept or to reject these [blood] fractions… So when should we ask a mature Christian for advice? After we have done our own research…”
At first glance, it seems like a modest, even humble, appeal to personal responsibility. But make no mistake: this is not about spiritual maturity. This is not about conscience. This is about liability—and it reeks of cowardice dressed up as piety.
The blood doctrine has long been a centerpiece of the Watchtower’s theological and cultural identity, enforced not merely through publications but through judicial action, social shunning, and unrelenting moral pressure. Now, as legal scrutiny tightens and the public grows increasingly repulsed by policies that have claimed the lives of countless men, women, and children, the Governing Body is playing a new game: plausible deniability. They want all the control without any of the responsibility. All the blood, none of the blame.
For decades, members were told explicitly that receiving a blood transfusion was a sin worthy of disfellowshipping. Families were torn apart, children died, and parents were lauded for letting their sons and daughters perish “faithful.” Elders delivered ultimatums in hospital rooms. Awake! magazine ran cover stories of brave martyrs who “stood firm” to the end. And now, just as the tide of global opinion turns and lawsuits mount, the organization dares to say: “Do your own research. The choice is yours.”
But the choice is anything but free. What Witness dares to reject the unspoken expectation? What parent wants to be seen as spiritually weak for authorizing a transfusion? The entire Watchtower framework is designed to steer members to the “right” conclusion, even while pretending to grant autonomy. A Witness who takes blood still faces social death by disassociation, even if it’s technically rebranded as a “personal decision.” It’s manipulation cloaked in compassion.
Apologists try to spin this shift as progress. “It’s just about fractions.” “They’ve always left room for conscience.” “There’s no hard rule anymore.” These arguments are disingenuous. If the Governing Body genuinely believed that accepting blood (or any of its components) was not a sin, they’d say so clearly. They’d abolish the Hospital Liaison Committees. They’d rescind decades of printed threats. They’d apologize for the lives lost under their directives. They’d disband the judicial penalties that still loom over every hospital bed.
But they won’t—because doing so would mean admitting that those deaths were not sacrifices to God, but to human arrogance. It would mean confessing that their understanding of divine will has been flawed, changeable, and deadly. And that kind of admission costs power.
Instead, they’re opting for ambiguity, letting rank-and-file Witnesses shoulder the moral burden they created. “Make your own decision,” they say, as if the ghost of a disfellowshipped relative isn’t standing in the room. “Do your own research,” as if the only available material isn’t their own doctrine, filtered through layers of euphemism and omission. “We never told them what to do,” they’ll insist, when the lawsuits come.
What’s more tragic is that none of this is new. This is the same playbook they used when they quietly reversed their ban on vaccinations in the 1950s after calling them “a violation of God’s covenant with Noah.” The same hedging they used when they outlawed organ transplants in 1967—calling them “cannibalism”—only to reverse course in 1980 without apology. The same backpedaling they’ll eventually do with blood transfusions, once the cost—legal, financial, reputational—is too high to ignore.
And when that day comes, it won’t be the Governing Body offering comfort to the grieving parents whose children died obeying a rule that no longer exists. It will be the same silence that always follows their doctrinal wreckage. No memorials. No retractions. No remorse.
So yes, the Watchtower now says the blood is on your hands. Not because they want to free your conscience—but because they want to free their own. It’s your choice, they say. But if you make the wrong one, you’ll still pay the price.
And they’ll still pretend they had nothing to do with it.
18
1975 debacle
by Gman2001 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
did the borg ever apologize for 1975?.
aqwsed12345

https://youtu.be/qqjzgYnq5Uo
The year 1975 stands as one of the most glaring examples of prophetic failure in the history of modern religious movements. It was a moment when the organization that claims to be God’s sole channel on earth built an entire campaign of urgency and expectation around a specific date—then, when the prophecy failed to materialize, deftly sidestepped responsibility with the slippery grace of a practiced illusionist. There was no thunderous apology from the platform, no sackcloth-wearing repentance in the pages of their publications. Instead, there was silence, followed by deflection, and then—years later—a watery, half-hearted acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, their words “might have” misled some “overzealous” followers.
But the historical record is unambiguous. The literature, the conventions, the talks—especially the infamous Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God book—drew bold connections between the biblical timeline and the year 1975. Leaders cultivated a climate of anticipation so intense that families sold homes, delayed medical care, chose not to pursue careers, put off having children, or abandoned savings accounts—all because they were led to believe the system would not last past that pivotal year. Entire lives were redirected on the basis of this failed expectation.
What followed was not accountability, but a breathtaking display of institutional gaslighting. When 1976 dawned and Armageddon had conspicuously failed to appear, the narrative quickly changed. Suddenly, it was the fault of the rank and file for "reading too much into it." The publications began inserting subtle phrases like “some thought” or “certain ones expected,” as if it were merely a fringe belief whispered in backrooms—not an orchestrated global campaign driven by leadership from the top down.
To this day, the organization has never issued a clear, unambiguous apology. Instead, it has chosen to let the memory fade into the fog of institutional amnesia. Many younger members don’t even know the 1975 debacle happened. They weren’t told how devastating it was for thousands who had sacrificed their futures for a lie. The past was paved over with new publications, rebranded urgency, and a steady reminder to never “run ahead of the organization”—a thinly veiled warning not to question, not to remember, and certainly not to hold leadership accountable for its own failings.
This isn’t just a story about a wrong prediction. It’s a story about manipulation, evasion, and institutional dishonesty. It is about how a religious organization, while demanding absolute trust and obedience, took no responsibility when its predictions failed spectacularly. Instead of confession, it offered scapegoating. Instead of transparency, it gave revisionism. And instead of humility, it doubled down on its spiritual authority, expecting those it misled to simply nod and carry on, as if nothing had happened.
The legacy of 1975 isn't just broken dreams and ruined plans. It's a permanent stain on the credibility of a group that claims divine guidance yet repeatedly demands that its followers forget the cost of their misplaced faith. To this day, the lesson remains: in a system built on control, failure is never admitted—it is repackaged, redirected, and denied. And those left to bear the consequences are told, with astonishing audacity, that it was their fault all along.
225
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

@KalebOutWest
Thank you for your reply. I want to begin by acknowledging the unique perspective you bring to the conversation, given your rich and multifaceted religious and cultural background. It’s clear that your experience spans Judaism, Catholicism, and the intense spiritual scrutiny of life within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I don’t take that lightly. You have walked many roads that have given you insight not only into doctrine, but into the lives of believers navigating faith, identity, and integrity under the weight of tradition and religious authority. I respect that deeply.
At the same time, I would like to respond—not with aggression or dismissal—but with the clarity and theological grounding of Catholic orthodoxy. Your frustration is palpable, and I want to address the heart of your critique with empathy, while also offering correction where it’s due.
When I said that accusing a Catholic of being a "Jehovah’s Witness at heart" is both misleading and ironic, I was not belittling your personal journey. Rather, I was highlighting the vast theological and ecclesiological differences between Catholicism and the Watchtower organization. Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the Trinity, reject the real incarnation of God in Christ, eliminate sacramental grace, and operate under a rigid and anti-historical interpretive regime that is alien to the Church's magisterial tradition. These are not trivial points. They are essential divides. The claim that a Catholic defending apostolic tradition is somehow reflecting the mindset of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a categorical misfire. To equate fidelity to tradition and teaching authority with the authoritarian structure of the Watchtower is to confuse continuity with control, and apostolic inheritance with ideological indoctrination.
Your remarks about knowing “rotten Catholics” and seeing through "bad ones" sound like they come from a place of deep disillusionment—perhaps with real hypocrisy you’ve witnessed. If that’s the case, I hear you. Scandal and bad witness exist. But that is not the essence of Catholicism. The sins of her members do not nullify the sanctity of her doctrine, nor the truth of her sacraments. Augustine once said, “You are the body of Christ. But if you are the body of Christ, then it is your mystery placed on the Lord’s table; you receive your mystery.” The Church is always both holy and in need of purification—simul justus et peccator, as our Lutheran friends say of the individual, and in a certain sense it applies ecclesiologically as well. But if Judas Iscariot sat at the first Eucharist, we cannot expect the Church to be entirely free from betrayal even now. The wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest.
As to your claim that I “don’t read current Church and doctrinal explanations from the Vatican,” I must respectfully disagree. My formation and engagement with Catholic theology is precisely shaped by those teachings, especially the Catechism, the documents of Vatican II (especially Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium), the writings of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, and the magisterium as it is faithfully interpreted within the hermeneutic of continuity. It’s possible that what you perceive as “walls and walls of words” is the result of an apologetic style shaped by St. Thomas Aquinas and the neoscholastic tradition, where argument and clarity matter. Sometimes clarity demands precision, and precision demands words. But I do not hide behind them.
The idea that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium “distort” the Gospel is one of the most persistent and harmful misunderstandings in post-Reformation polemics. You seem to suggest, albeit indirectly, that Tradition is a kind of runaway appendage to Scripture. But that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Tradition, properly understood, is not a supplement to revelation but the mode of its transmission. The apostles did not write everything they were commanded to teach; they passed on the faith through preaching, worship, and oral instruction long before a New Testament canon was even imagined. Scripture itself is the product of that living Tradition, not its origin.
You said that Catholics wouldn’t have their Bible or Tradition without the Jews, and you're absolutely right—at least partially. The roots of our faith are irrevocably Jewish, and Christianity without that soil would be incomprehensible. But Jesus Christ did not come to merely preserve or extend Mosaic religion. He fulfilled it. He established a New Covenant in His blood and founded a Church upon the apostles to be His mystical Body and visible instrument on earth. He gave this Church—not a book alone—the authority to teach, to bind and loose, and to sanctify the world through the sacraments. He did not leave us orphans. He left us a living voice.
To dismiss those who try to defend this tradition as “fantasists” or “liars” behind keyboards may feel cathartic in the moment, but it does little to advance the conversation. More than that, it unfairly presumes the worst about people who are simply trying to respond with reverence and clarity. I do not speak from a vacuum, nor from an “armchair.” My engagement is from within the lived reality of Catholicism—not just intellectually, but sacramentally and ecclesially. If I sound convicted, it's because I believe the Church is what she claims to be. If I sound confident, it’s because I trust the promises of Christ to His Church, not because I think myself superior.
Your personal background is not to be minimized. You have navigated more religious landscapes than many do in a lifetime, and your comments show deep awareness of both the beauty and the failures of Catholicism. I do not deny that. But I would gently suggest that pain and disillusionment with bad Catholics—real though they may be—should not drive us to caricature or bitterness toward the truth the Church bears. “We hold this treasure in earthen vessels,” as Paul said, “to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.”
I close with this: Holy Thursday is indeed sacred. You called me out, perhaps with irony, for writing on that night. But perhaps it is also fitting, for Holy Thursday is the night when the priesthood and the Eucharist were instituted. It is the night when Peter protested he would never betray Christ, and then did. And it is the night when the Lord, knowing all, still washed His disciples’ feet. That is the Catholic Church—broken men, restored by grace, carrying something infinitely greater than themselves.
So no, I will not “go home” in shame. I am home—in the Church Christ founded. And if there is sin in her members, we weep for it, confess it, and rise again. But we do not abandon the Ark because of the storm.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob bless you and draw you deeper into the fullness of His revelation in Christ, whom even now we both revere, though from different vantage points. And may you one day see the Catholic Church not through the failures of her members, but through the eyes of the Bridegroom who gave His life for her.
225
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

@vienne
Thi is a gross misrepresentation rooted in a misunderstanding of both Scripture and Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church has never "feared" the Bible; in fact, it preserved, canonized, and transmitted it for centuries before the Protestant Reformation even existed. What the Church rightly cautions against is the privatized, individualistic interpretation of Scripture detached from the very authority and tradition that gave us the Bible in the first place. The issue isn’t "fear," but fidelity—fidelity to the full context of Scripture, not just isolated proof texts or “plain readings” that ignore historical, cultural, and linguistic nuance, and the interpretive authority Christ gave to His Church.
The term “plain words” itself is problematic. Plain to whom? The ancient Scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, not in modern English. Their meanings are shaped by literary genre, cultural idioms, and theological contexts that are often not “plain” at all to the modern reader. Even St. Peter warned that some things in Paul’s letters are “hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). This means that misunderstanding Scripture isn’t a hypothetical danger—it’s a real one, and it’s confirmed by the fractured landscape of Protestantism, which contains thousands of competing sects, all claiming to follow the Bible’s “plain words.”
The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is the Word of God, inspired and inerrant. But that doesn’t mean each individual believer is automatically equipped to interpret it correctly without guidance. This is not fear—it’s humility. The early Church didn’t treat Scripture as a private book for each believer to interpret however they pleased. The Bereans, often cited by Protestants (Acts 17:11), were not isolated individuals reading the Bible alone in their homes; they were part of the Jewish synagogue tradition, steeped in interpretive community. Even they were praised not simply for reading Scripture but for doing so in the context of receiving apostolic teaching.
Furthermore, the so-called “plain reading” has often led to heresy. Arius used “plain” texts to argue that Jesus was a creature. The Watchtower uses “plain” readings to deny the Trinity and the bodily resurrection of Christ. Modern liberal theologians use the “plain” words of Jesus on love and justice to justify homosexuality, abortion, and religious relativism. Clearly, the “plain reading” standard is entirely subjective and deeply flawed unless it is anchored in the apostolic faith preserved by the Church.
The Catholic position, far from being "fearful," is grounded in the wisdom Christ gave His Church. Christ did not write a book; He founded a Church. He appointed apostles and gave them authority to teach in His name (Luke 10:16). The Bible came later, written by the Church, for the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To separate the Bible from the Church is to sever it from the very lifeblood that preserved and illuminated it through the centuries. The Church is not opposed to Scripture but is its custodian. Scripture and Tradition are not rivals—they are two modes of transmission of the same divine revelation (cf. Dei Verbum 9).
To say Catholics are “afraid” of the Bible is not only false—it is deeply ironic. Protestantism, in many of its forms, is afraid to admit that sola scriptura is not taught in Scripture, that the Bible points to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), that Jesus gave His authority not to a book, but to living men with successors (Matthew 28:19–20), and that the early Church operated on the basis of oral tradition and the Eucharist long before a New Testament was even compiled. It is Protestant fundamentalism, not Catholicism, that has built its theology on a tradition of man—sola scriptura—that was unknown to the apostles, the Fathers, and the early Church.
The Catholic Church does not run from the Bible—it lives by it, proclaims it, preaches it in every Mass, and interprets it in harmony with the living tradition and magisterial authority that Christ Himself instituted. That is not fear—it is faithfulness.
The Bible works the same way as the Constitution, it doesn't mean what Average Johnny sees in it, but what SCOTUS has determined it means.
@joey jojo
Creation refers specifically to the act by which God brings something into being from nothing (ex nihilo), that is, the first origination of a thing's very substance and essence without any prior subject or material cause. This is not the same as God rearranging, altering, or manifesting something within already-created nature, even if such actions defy the ordinary laws of nature and are, by definition, miraculous.

To say that manna was a "new creation" is to confuse miracle with creation. A miracle—like manna—is extraordinary, yes, but it presupposes the existence of creation and operates within it. It involves God's governance, His power over created causes, not a return to the act of bringing something from non-being into being. Even the multiplication of loaves and fishes by Christ in the Gospels, or His transformation of water into wine at Cana, are not considered new acts of creatio ex nihilo in the metaphysical sense. They are signs of God's dominion over creation, not evidence of a resumed foundational creation process.

The distinction between God’s initial act of creation and His ongoing providential governance is rooted in the biblical text itself. Genesis 2:2–3 clearly speaks of God "resting" from His works of creation, not from all activity. This rest refers to the conclusion of the original creative act, not to a divine withdrawal from the world. Scripture itself testifies to God’s ongoing work: “My Father is working still, and I am working” (John 5:17). Jesus said this precisely in response to a Sabbath controversy, and the text goes on to say that the Jews sought to kill Him because “He was making Himself equal with God.” The Jewish leaders understood that divine governance did not cease on the Sabbath—God sustains the universe even while the Sabbath rest is observed. What they found scandalous was that Jesus claimed that He too participated in this divine sustaining action.

The position you dismissed as “Christian apologetics” is in fact historic Christian doctrine, developed through centuries of biblical exegesis and philosophical reflection. It is affirmed not just by theologians trying to “cover for biblical errors,” but by the internal coherence of biblical teaching itself. The Old Testament presents God as continuously involved in Israel’s history, guiding, intervening, sustaining. Were each of these interventions to be considered a new creation, Scripture would contradict its own testimony of God having rested from creation on the seventh day.

Furthermore, to argue that “manna falling from heaven does not happen naturally” and therefore must be new creation, is to presume that anything that breaks the usual course of nature is necessarily a creation from nothing. This logic would require us to categorize every miracle—every healing, every prophetic vision, every divine intervention—as a new ontological event equivalent to the creation of the heavens and the earth. This is not only an unbiblical conflation but a philosophical absurdity. It ignores the concept of secondary causality, the idea that God works through, with, or above natural causes without abolishing the distinction between creation and providence.

The Catholic theological tradition does not rely on “dreams” or speculative gymnastics to avoid “biblical errors,” because it does not accept that Scripture contains any contradiction in the first place. Instead, it reads the Bible within the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit, the living Tradition, and sound reason. The depth and richness of this interpretive tradition are precisely what prevent hasty, surface-level readings from distorting the true nature of divine action.

Therefore, the miracle of the manna does not invalidate or contradict the biblical teaching that God “rested” on the seventh day. Rather, it confirms the Church’s distinction between creation (as a once-for-all act) and providence (as a continual governance). God's rest is not passivity but fulfillment, not inactivity but sovereignty. His miraculous acts, far from undermining that rest, are manifestations of His intimate involvement with the world He lovingly sustains. This view, far from being “crap,” is the only theologically coherent and biblically faithful way to understand God’s rest in light of His ongoing action in salvation history.
@KalebOutWest
The Catholic affirmation of Sacred Tradition, far from resembling the human traditions of the Pharisees that Christ condemned (Mark 7:6–13), is rooted in divine revelation handed down from the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When Catholics speak of Tradition, they do not refer to ever-expanding layers of human interpretation added over centuries—as in the case of the Talmudic development of the so-called “Oral Torah”—but to the living transmission of the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), safeguarded by the Church founded by Christ and governed by apostolic authority.
The false equivalence between Catholic Tradition and rabbinic oral law collapses under closer scrutiny. The Oral Torah in Judaism—compiled centuries after Moses in the Mishnah and later expanded in the Talmud—represents a massive and extraneous body of law and commentary, claiming Mosaic authority without textual basis. Jesus Himself rebuked these traditions when they obscured or contradicted God's commandments. Catholic Tradition, by contrast, is not separate from Scripture but deeply intertwined with it. It is not an innovation layered atop divine revelation but its faithful transmission through the apostolic Church, guided by the Spirit of truth whom Christ promised would lead the apostles into all truth (John 16:13). This Tradition predates the final canon of Scripture and includes the lived faith, liturgy, creeds, and moral teachings of the early Church—all of which attest to and preserve the deposit of faith.
Your accusation of “cognitive dissonance” fails to grasp this distinction. The Catholic Church does not “reject” the Jewish understanding of tradition because it dislikes tradition per se, but because Jesus Himself fulfilled the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17), and established a New Covenant wherein the authority to teach and interpret His revelation was entrusted not to the successors of the Pharisees, but to His apostles (Luke 10:16; Matthew 28:18–20). The apostolic Tradition is thus not a parallel to rabbinic authority but its fulfillment and transcendence. That Tradition—which includes but is not limited to the writings of the Church Fathers—is not arbitrary or endlessly expanding but is the Spirit-protected handing-on (paradosis) of Christ’s teaching in its fullness (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2).
Furthermore, to reduce the role of the Church Fathers to “human traditions” misses the point entirely. Catholics do not place the Fathers on par with Scripture, nor do we treat them as if their writings are infallible. Rather, we regard them as trustworthy witnesses to the apostolic faith. When you read men like Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the first century, or Irenaeus of Lyons in the second, you are reading men who either knew the apostles directly or were only one generation removed. These Fathers did not “invent” Catholic doctrines but received them from those who walked with Christ or their immediate disciples. Their writings illuminate how the earliest Christians interpreted Scripture, celebrated the sacraments, structured their communities, and defended the faith against heresies. To ignore them in favor of modern, individualistic interpretations of Scripture is to sever yourself from the very context in which the Bible was written, compiled, and faithfully transmitted.
Accusing a Catholic of being a "Jehovah’s Witness at heart" is both misleading and ironic. First of all, I was never a JW. Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the divinity of Christ, reject the Trinity, and possess no apostolic continuity or sacramental life. Their rejection of history and ecclesial authority puts them far closer to the logical end of sola scriptura than any Catholic who embraces the fullness of apostolic Tradition. It is not the Catholic Church that behaves like the Watchtower, but those who assert their own interpretive authority over that of the visible Church Christ established. Catholics do not rely on private revelations, governing bodies in Brooklyn, or novel “restorations.” We rely on the visible Church, the successors of the apostles, and the consensus of the early Church—always rooted in the Scripture they received, preserved, and preached.
225
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

@vienne
When Catholics refer to the Church Fathers, they are not elevating their words to the level of inspired Scripture, but rather honoring their testimony as those who received, preserved, and passed down the apostolic teaching handed to them by the apostles themselves. These men were not random theologians centuries later but were bishops, martyrs, and defenders of the faith who lived in the earliest generations after Christ and the apostles. Their writings give us critical historical evidence of how the Bible was read and understood within the community to which it was entrusted—the Church. Their testimony serves as a living bridge connecting us with the faith of the apostles, not as a competing source of revelation.
The idea that one should use “the Bible alone” without any recourse to Tradition or the Church’s teaching authority is not itself taught in the Bible. Nowhere does Scripture declare that it is the sole rule of faith for the believer. On the contrary, Scripture speaks of the Church as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), and it affirms the oral traditions passed down by the apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The very canon of the Bible—what books are in and what are out—was discerned by the authority of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, in the fourth century through the Church’s bishops. If someone insists on the Bible alone, they must also account for the fact that the Bible they hold was compiled, protected, and defined by the Catholic Church, which did not rely on sola scriptura to do so. To reject tradition while relying on the Bible is to ignore the very process by which the Bible came to be recognized as Scripture.
Moreover, reading the Bible "at face value" without any interpretive framework is a concept foreign to the early Church and highly problematic in practice. The face value reading of Scripture has given rise to thousands of conflicting interpretations across Protestant denominations. Each claims to follow the Bible "alone," yet they reach contradictory conclusions on issues like baptism, the Eucharist, salvation, justification, the nature of the Church, and moral teachings. Christ did not leave us with a book and ask us each to become our own pope. He left us with a Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, and gave His apostles authority to teach in His name (Luke 10:16; Matthew 28:19–20). That apostolic authority did not die with them; it was handed on, and the Church Fathers are among the earliest witnesses to how that authority was exercised and preserved.
To reject the Fathers out of hand is to cut oneself off from the living memory of the early Church. It is to isolate Scripture from the community in which it was written, read, and lived. The Bible was never meant to be interpreted in a vacuum. Christ never said, “Read this book and figure it out for yourself.” He said, “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16). The apostolic teaching was both written and unwritten, and it was handed down through time not just in texts, but in the life and worship of the Church. The Fathers help us understand how the earliest Christians, who received the Gospel directly or nearly directly from the apostles, understood that faith. Their role is not to override Scripture, but to safeguard its proper understanding, rooted in apostolic truth.
Finally, the rejection of “extra-biblical” sources ironically relies on an extra-biblical assumption: that the Bible alone is sufficient and self-interpreting. That principle is found nowhere in the Bible and was never believed by the Church for the first 1,500 years of Christian history. The idea of "sola Scriptura" is itself a man-made tradition, invented in the 16th century, with devastating consequences for Christian unity and doctrinal coherence. The Catholic approach is not about "abandoning" the Bible, but to embrace it more fully—within the living Tradition and teaching authority that Christ Himself established to protect and interpret His Word faithfully until the end of time.
225
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

@joey jojo
Thank you for raising this question—it's a thoughtful challenge that invites a serious theological response. You are right to point out that Scripture says God rested on the seventh day (Genesis 2:2), and yet we see Him “doing” things afterward, like providing manna in the wilderness. If God rested from His works, how can such actions be understood? Would not such acts, like causing manna to fall, constitute a new act of creation, and thus contradict His own sabbath-rest?
The classical theological tradition offers a precise metaphysical framework to resolve this difficulty without diminishing either God's transcendence or His providential action in the world.
First, we must clarify the nature of God’s rest on the seventh day. Genesis 2:2 speaks not of rest due to fatigue (which is impossible for an immutable and impassible Being), but of a cessation from a particular type of divine activity—namely, the founding acts of creation ex nihilo. This is affirmed across classical commentary and Catholic theology. The act of creation, strictly speaking, refers to bringing something into being from nothing (ex nihilo). Once the six days of such initial creation concluded, God ceased to create new species or kinds of beings. He entered, as the Church Fathers often put it, into the "Sabbath of His delight"—a rest of satisfaction and completion, not of inactivity or withdrawal.
The phrase “God rested on the seventh day” (Genesis 2:2-3) was not understood by the Church Fathers in a literal, anthropomorphic sense (i.e., as if God needed physical rest), but rather as a theological symbol of divine completion, eschatological fulfillment, and spiritual rest, in full harmony with the Thomistic and Catholic tradition. Below is a synthesized summary of the patristic interpretations most in accord with Thomistic theology, particularly its metaphysical and eschatological dimensions.
The Church Fathers firmly rejected the idea that God physically “rested” out of fatigue. This would contradict His nature as Pure Act (actus purus). Origen explicitly refutes the notion that God rested out of weariness, clarifying that “rest” signifies the completion of creation and anticipates the Sabbath rest of the righteous who, after their labors, will contemplate God eternally. Augustine teaches (in City of God, Book XXII.30) that God's rest is a figure of the eternal Sabbath—the eschatological consummation when the blessed rest in God, not because God ceases to act, but because He brings about a state of unchangeable perfection in His saints. This aligns with Aquinas’ view that God’s “rest” refers to a cessation from the act of creating new kinds of things, not from His sustaining governance (Summa Theologiae I, q.18–26). Chrysostom similarly explains that God's rest is a mystagogical sign and not literal: God, being impassible and omnipotent, “labored” not, and hence did not “rest” as man does. Rather, He gave a symbolic rest, prefiguring spiritual contemplation and the Lord's Day.

Several Fathers interpreted the seventh day typologically and eschatologically: the six days represent the history of the world; the seventh symbolizes the coming age of peace and rest in God. Epistle of Barnabas (ch. XV) sees the Sabbath as a prophetic type of the final age, when Christ returns and wickedness is destroyed, ushering in the true Sabbath rest—the new creation and the resurrection. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, V.28) affirms that the six days of creation correspond to six millennia of human history, with the seventh being the future rest of the just in God. This is in line with Thomistic eschatology, which teaches that the beatific vision is man’s final end (cf. ST I–II, q.3).
Augustine, especially in his Letter to Januarius, insists that God’s rest is not inactivity but a sign of future sanctification and eternal rest in the Holy Spirit—a participation in God’s own unchangeable perfection. This anticipates Aquinas' theology of beatitude as a rest in the possession of the ultimate good (ST I–II, q.4). Augustine (again in City of God) deeply connects God’s rest with the ultimate human destiny: resting in God by knowing and loving Him eternally. This “Sabbath with no evening” is the eternal joy of the redeemed, when God will be “all in all.” This is thoroughly Thomistic: Aquinas teaches that the finis ultimus of man is contemplation of God (the beatific vision), and this “rest” is not cessation but perfect spiritual activity in God.
Augustine and Chrysostom maintain that while God “rested” from creation, He continues to work in providence. This distinction is essential in Thomistic theology: creation is a temporal action completed in time, but governance is an ongoing divine operation (ST I, q.104). Thus, the phrase “God rested” must be read analogically, not univocally—a key Thomistic principle concerning language about God.

Yet, as you rightly observed, God did not become inactive in history. The miracle of the manna, the parting of the Red Sea, the Incarnation—all these involved divine action. But here’s the distinction: God’s providential governance and miraculous interventions are not “new creations” in the metaphysical sense, but expressions of His sustaining and governing power over the world He already created. They are not interruptions of His rest, but expressions of His continuous divine concursus—His cooperation with, and sustaining of, all secondary causes and natural processes.
As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches (ST I, q. 105), God not only created all things, but continually holds them in being. If He were to withdraw His causal influence even for a moment, all creation would lapse into the primordial chaos, into nothingness. Therefore, His rest must be understood not as a cessation from all activity, but from the specific act of bringing forth new being from non-being. What God ceased on the seventh day was not divine action as such, but the initiation of new ontological categories of being.
The manna, therefore, is not a new kind of creation, but an extraordinary arrangement within the existing created order—what we call a miracle, where God either suspends or surpasses the usual operation of natural causes. This is not contrary to rest, for it is still an act of providence, not of founding creation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms this too:
“Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created 'in a state of journeying' (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection” (CCC §302).
Furthermore, John 5:17 records Jesus saying, “My Father is working still, and I am working.” This was in direct response to a Sabbath controversy. Christ here explicitly affirms what the Church has always taught: that God’s rest is not a withdrawal, but a continued action in sustaining, governing, and redeeming creation. The Jews recognized that this statement made Jesus equal to God—not because He was denying the Sabbath law, but because He was claiming divine prerogative: the kind of work only God could do—sustaining the cosmos and administering grace. This was not a breach of the Sabbath but the very fulfillment of it.
As Catholic theology affirms (see Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 65; ST I, q. 104-105), preservation is a continuation of creation. It is not a new act, but the ongoing application of the same divine causality that first brought all things into being. God's act of causing manna is not a new creation ex nihilo, but a miraculous manifestation within the created order—an act of providence, not of origination.
Therefore, the notion that God's “rest” excludes any further interaction with creation reflects a deistic misunderstanding, not the Christian or Thomistic view. The deists—like Herbert of Cherbury or Tindal—claimed that God made the world and then walked away, leaving it to run on its own. But this is explicitly rejected by Catholic doctrine, which teaches that God is not only the Creator, but the continuous sustainer of being and motion (cf. Acts 17:28, Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:17).
In conclusion, causing manna to fall from heaven was not a new act of creation in the strict metaphysical sense, and thus it did not violate the divine rest. God’s sabbath rest means cessation from foundational creative acts, not from providence, governance, or miraculous grace. This distinction, deeply rooted in Catholic metaphysics and theology, preserves both the transcendence of God and His intimate involvement in the world—a harmony only possible through a true understanding of divine action, as taught by the Church.
225
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

@joey jojo
This is an excellent and important question that touches on profound theological truths about Christ’s divine nature, His humanity, and the meaning of the Sabbath law. First and foremost, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man—a single divine Person (the eternal Son) with two natures: divine and human. This is the mystery of the Incarnation: the eternal Word, through whom all things were made, assumed a real human nature without ceasing to be God (cf. John 1:1,14).
While Jesus was on earth, He was truly and fully God. His divine nature was never set aside or suspended. However, as St. Paul tells us in Philippians 2:6–7, though He was “in the form of God,” He “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” This “kenosis” does not mean that He ceased to be divine, but that He humbled Himself by not always exercising the full glory and majesty of His divine attributes visibly. Yet, even during His earthly life, His divine identity was made manifest—He forgave sins, accepted worship, knew men’s hearts, and declared Himself “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8).
Yes, Jesus worked. He lived an authentically human life, and as the Gospels tell us, He was known as “the carpenter’s son” (Matthew 13:55) and even as “the carpenter” Himself (Mark 6:3). There is no contradiction here. Ordinary work—like making furniture or farming—is not a violation of the Sabbath. The Sabbath command, properly understood, prohibited servile work, particularly work done in economic service or in defiance of divine worship. What Jesus did in His human life, including acts of mercy, healing, or daily labor, was not a profanation of the Sabbath but a participation in the true meaning of rest and worship.
In fact, the accusation that Jesus violated the Sabbath is repeatedly addressed in the Gospels. The Pharisees, interpreting the Law in a rigid and legalistic way, accused Jesus of “working” on the Sabbath when He healed the sick or allowed His disciples to pick grain (e.g., John 5, Mark 2). But Jesus responds by revealing the deeper intention of the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). He shows that acts of mercy, healing, and doing good do not break the Sabbath—they fulfill it. Moreover, by healing on the Sabbath, He reveals His divine identity: “My Father is working still, and I am working” (John 5:17). This is not a confession of guilt, but a declaration of divinity. The Jews understood the implication—that He was making Himself equal with God—and thus sought to kill Him (John 5:18).
The Old Testament example of the man gathering sticks (Numbers 15:32–36) is a case of willful defiance of God's command, not of innocent labor or an act of mercy. That man violated the Sabbath in the spirit of rebellion, not necessity or charity. The point of the law was to orient the people of Israel to God, to cease from worldly striving and recall that their life came from Him. But the Sabbath was also a foreshadowing—a type—of the eternal rest and worship that Christ would inaugurate.
Now regarding God’s "rest" since creation: this rest is not inactivity, as if God ceased to act altogether, but rather the completion and enjoyment of creation. God's "rest" refers to His cessation from new acts of creation, not from providence or governance. God continues to sustain and direct creation at every moment. Thus, Jesus, as God, is always working in the divine sense—preserving, governing, and redeeming the world. His becoming man and His earthly ministry are not contradictions of divine rest, but rather its fulfillment: for in Christ, God enters into His creation not only to rest but to restore it.
To sum up, Jesus did not break the Sabbath. He revealed its true meaning. As the incarnate Word, He lived in perfect obedience to the Law, fulfilling it both in letter and spirit. He is not only the Lord of the Sabbath—He is the One in whom we find our eternal rest. His work on earth was the work of love, mercy, and redemption, perfectly consistent with the divine will and the sacred law He gave. Far from being a lawbreaker, He is the Lawgiver who came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).
225
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
Your response relies on accusations of dishonesty and casual dismissals rather than engaging substantively with the theological and scriptural arguments presented. Let’s thoroughly refute each of your claims in detail:
You sarcastically claim that modern Greek lexicons support your view of “antilytron” as implying exact equivalence. Yet you fail to provide a single citation from BDAG or any authoritative modern lexicon supporting this claim. Let me correct your misunderstanding. BDAG explicitly defines "antilytron" as “ransom” or “ransom price” with the idea of substitution, not equality of ontological value. No reputable lexicon insists that the term demands exact equivalence of natures or value between Christ and Adam. Your reliance on Parkhurst (an outdated lexicon influenced by idiosyncratic philosophical biases, as noted even in its own preface) over modern authoritative scholarship exposes the weakness of your argument.
You strangely bring up Romans 10:4, stating the Mosaic Law ended when Jesus died, implying this supports your argument about ransom equivalence. Romans 10:4 indeed says Christ is “the end of the Law,” but this does nothing to bolster your theory of a strictly "equal" ransom. Rather, Romans emphasizes that Christ fulfilled the Law in a manner infinitely superior to any mere human obedience—precisely because He is God incarnate (cf. Matthew 5:17). Paul repeatedly insists that Christ’s sacrifice infinitely surpasses mere human equivalence (Romans 5:15–17). Your reference here is irrelevant and confused.
Your citation of 1 Corinthians 15:45 (“The last Adam became a life-giving spirit”) attempts to deny Christ’s bodily resurrection. Yet, Paul explicitly argues the opposite. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul repeatedly affirms Christ’s bodily resurrection (verses 20-22), describing Christ as the "firstfruits" of our own bodily resurrection. Paul emphasizes continuity—not discontinuity—between Christ’s physical, resurrected body and ours (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:35–49). The phrase “life-giving spirit” contrasts Adam’s role in transmitting mere earthly life with Christ’s role in imparting resurrected life through His glorified body, animated by the Holy Spirit. It does not imply a purely spiritual resurrection. Christ himself emphasizes his bodily resurrection, explicitly saying, “Handle me and see; a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39). Your selective reading ignores the immediate and wider scriptural context, twisting Paul’s meaning.
You rightly note Hebrews 4:15 highlights Christ’s sinlessness. But sinlessness alone is insufficient to mediate between God and man unless Christ possesses both full humanity and full divinity. A merely sinless created being would still fail to bridge the infinite gap between God and sinful humanity. The dignity of the offended party (God) demands a ransom of infinite worth. Only the incarnate God, fully human and fully divine, can adequately mediate and redeem humanity (1 Timothy 2:5-6, Colossians 2:9, Acts 20:28). Your explanation remains incomplete and theologically incoherent.
You invoke the phrase "a soul for a soul," suggesting equivalency. Yet Scripture explicitly denies the sufficiency of any mere human life for redemption: "Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life" (Psalm 49:7–8). The infinite offense of sin demands an infinite satisfaction. The Bible never says redemption is achieved through exact equivalence to Adam’s life but through Christ’s infinitely valuable sacrifice (Hebrews 9:11–14, Romans 5:20–21).
You claim, via the non-JW site you linked, that the ransom was paid to God simply "because God decided that is how it must be." But this explanation avoids addressing the fundamental theological problem your literal ransom theory creates: Why would God require a payment to Himself from a creature to restore humanity? It suggests a crude transactionalism unworthy of God’s divine love and justice. Christ’s death was not a payment to satisfy divine debt but a self-sacrificial act of divine love, reconciling humanity to God (Romans 5:8, 2 Corinthians 5:19). Your simplistic transactional model misrepresents the biblical message of grace.
Your dismissive accusation my responses are allegedly "AI-generated" is merely an ad hominem attempt to evade substantive engagement. Rather than addressing points systematically with scriptural and theological rigor, you resort to accusations and dismissals. Such tactics only underscore the weakness of your position.
In sum, your response displays superficial biblical interpretation, selective citation, and reliance on outdated or questionable sources. It fails to address the deeper theological issues at stake—namely, the infinite nature of sin’s offense against God and the necessity of Christ’s divine-human nature for redemption.
Your insistence on an exact equivalence ransom misunderstands the biblical concept of redemption, diminishes the infinite worth of Christ’s sacrifice, and contradicts clear biblical affirmations of Christ’s bodily resurrection and divinity.
The Catholic position remains biblically sound, historically consistent, and theologically coherent: Christ’s ransom infinitely surpasses Adam’s offense, precisely because Christ is truly God and truly man, offering redemption not merely as a restoration of Eden but as elevation into the eternal communion of the Trinity.
Your theology, by contrast, reduces redemption to a mechanical transaction devoid of divine love and power—one that the biblical witness emphatically rejects.
Now I will write a structured answer for Rolf Furuli’s article that critiques the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Governing Body on the ransom doctrine, specifically addressing the misuse of the term antilytron in 1 Timothy 2:6, and rejecting the Watchtower’s two-class salvation model. I’ll include sections that cover the Catholic understanding of the ransom, a detailed analysis of the Greek terms antilytron, pas, and polys, and demonstrate from Scripture, tradition, and logic that Christ died for all of humanity—not just 'all sorts.' I’ll also expose the theological problems of the JW interpretation and their inconsistent logic regarding universal redemption.
Catholic teaching proclaims that Jesus Christ’s redemptive death was offered for all humanity, without exception. On the cross, Christ paid the price (or ransom) to free us from sin and death (cf. Mark 10:45). The Catechism of the Catholic Church emphasizes this universal scope:
- Universal Redemption: “The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: ‘There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.’” (CCC 605). In other words, no segment of humanity is excluded from the saving work of Jesus. He gave Himself on Calvary to redeem every descendant of Adam.
- Scriptural Foundation: Scripture repeatedly affirms that Christ’s sacrifice is intended for all people. St. Paul teaches that God “wants all people to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4) and that Christ “gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:6) Likewise, “one died for all” (2 Corinthians 5:14) and “he died for all” (2 Corinthians 5:15). The Letter to the Hebrews says Jesus “might taste death for everyone” (Hebrews 2:9). The Apostle John adds that Christ is “the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). These verses leave no doubt that the intention of Christ’s oblation was as broad as humanity itself.
- Sufficient for All, Effective for Many: Catholic doctrine makes an important distinction: Christ’s atoning death is sufficient for the salvation of all, but it is only effective for those who freely accept His grace. God does not force salvation on anyone against their will. Our Faith is that Christ’s Blood was shed for all, and not merely for a large number, but all would not profit of it for the remission of their sins. In other words, Jesus died to make salvation available to every person, even though sadly not all will choose to benefit from that sacrifice. The offer is universal, yet individuals must freely cooperate with God’s grace to receive its fruits. This harmonizes the universal scope of the ransom with the reality that some persist in unbelief.
In summary, the Catholic Church unambiguously rejects any “restriction” of the ransom’s value or intention. From the apostles to the Church Fathers to the present, the consistent teaching is that Christ’s redemptive death was made on behalf of all humanity. Any claim that Jesus died only for a limited group or “only for those who will be saved” is utterly foreign to historic Christian doctrine and Scripture (CCC 605).
Antilytron in 1 Timothy 2:6 – “Ransom for All,” Not “All Sorts of People”
A central Scripture discussed by Rolf Furuli is 1 Timothy 2:6, where St. Paul says Jesus “gave Himself as a ransom for all”. The Greek word used for “ransom” here is antílytron (ἀντίλυτρον), a rare term that conveys the idea of a ransom or an exchange of equal value. In context, it means Christ offered a life of infinite worth (His own perfect life) in exchange for the lives of all people who were enslaved to sin. Paul’s phrase “for all” (Greek: hyper pantôn, ὑπὲρ πάντων) plainly means on behalf of every human being.
However, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation (NWT) obscures this verse by rendering it as “a corresponding ransom for all sorts of people.” The insertion of “corresponding”, and “sorts of” are not in the Greek text – it is a theologically motivated interpolation that narrows the meaning. ‘All men,’ say they; ‘that is, some of all sorts of men’: as if the Lord could not have said ‘all sorts of men’ if He had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written ‘all men,’ and unquestionably he means all men. In other words, the inspired text says “all,” and it means all. If St. Paul intended to say “all kinds of people” (to imply a limitation), he had clear ways to say that, but he did not. The NWT’s paraphrase “all sorts of people” is unwarranted by the Greek and serves only to support the Watchtower’s doctrine that not everyone is meant to benefit from Christ’s ransom. This rendering has been called “doctrinally biased”, found in no other Bible translation.
Meaning of Antílytron – A “Corresponding Ransom”
The term antílytron in 1 Timothy 2:6 is significant. It is formed from lytron (λύτρον, “ransom price”) with the prefix anti- (“in place of”). Scholarly lexicons define antílytron as “ransom” – a price that exactly matches or corresponds to what it buys. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own study notes acknowledge this meaning: “The Greek term translated ‘corresponding ransom’ is an·tí·lytron, which is composed of anti ‘in exchange for; in correspondence to’ and lytron ‘ransom; ransom price.’ Jesus gave his perfect human life as a sacrifice that corresponds exactly to the perfect human life that Adam lost.” (1 Timothy 2 | Online Bible | New World Translation).
If Jesus’ life is the corresponding ransom equal to the life of Adam, then by extension all who descend from Adam are covered by that ransom’s value. Christ’s sacrifice wouldn’t correspond merely to a subset of humanity; it corresponds to the entirety of Adam’s race. Thus, translating antílytron hyper pantôn as “ransom for all” is the most straightforward and theologically sound reading. The NWT’s “ransom for all sorts of people” subtly implies that Jesus’ death only directly ransoms those who belong to certain categories (namely, those who respond and become Jehovah’s Witnesses). But such a restriction is refuted by the very meaning of antílytron and the consistent usage of pantôn (“all”) in the New Testament. As Charles Spurgeon sharply observed, attempts to reinterpret “all men” as “all sorts of men” effectively “explain away” the text. We must let Scripture speak for itself: Jesus died for every human being. Any theology that must rewrite 1 Timothy 2:4–6 to say something other than “all people” stands on shaky ground.
In Catholic theology, therefore, 1 Timothy 2:6 shines as a testament to God’s universal saving will. The verse unambiguously teaches what the Church affirms: Christ’s ransom is offered to all humanity. The scope of His sacrifice is as universal as the scope of sin – just as all fell in Adam, so all may be redeemed in Christ (cf. Romans 5:18) (CCC 605). Any translation or interpretation that would limit “all” to a mere “all sorts” is rightly rejected. The good news of the Gospel is that “God so loved the world that He gave His only Son”, not just a select few (John 3:16).
Refuting the “Two-Class” Salvation Doctrine (144,000 vs. the “Great Crowd”)
Jehovah’s Witness theology divides mankind’s salvation into two unequal classes: (1) a small group of 144,000 “anointed” Christians who alone go to heaven and reign with Christ, and (2) the “great crowd” of other believers who are not born again, do not have Christ as their mediator in the full sense, and will live forever on earth rather than sharing heavenly glory. Rolf Furuli criticizes this doctrine as a “devaluation and restriction” of Christ’s ransom, and the Catholic Church heartily agrees. This two-class system is inconsistent with Scripture and the historic Christian understanding of salvation. We can refute it on several grounds:
- One People, One Hope: The New Testament knows of one Christian people with one common hope, not two separate destinies. St. Paul writes that there is “one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:4–6). All who belong to Christ form one body (Romans 12:5), and all share the same hope of living eternally in God’s presence. Nowhere do the apostles say that some believers will enjoy a superior heavenly life while others have a second-tier earthly life apart from God’s immediate presence. Jesus promised “In my Father’s house are many rooms… I go to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2) to all His disciples, not just a small elite. The vision of heaven in Revelation shows a “great multitude” of saved people “from every nation, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes” (Rev 7:9). Catholic exegesis understands this great multitude to include all the saved, enjoying the worship of God in heaven. Jehovah’s Witnesses instead claim this “great crowd” stands on earth, inferior to the 144,000, but Revelation 19:1 explicitly locates a great crowd “in heaven” praising God (Scriptures to show the Great Crowd are in heaven). Scripture simply does not support the idea of two separate flocks of saved persons with different rewards; Christ has one flock and all His sheep share in the same salvation (John 10:16).
- All in Christ Are Children of God: The two-class doctrine gravely undermines the fullness of what Christ won for us. In Catholic teaching, every baptized Christian is a child of God and an heir to heaven. “If children, then heirs – heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:17) applies to all the faithful. There is no Christian who is not an heir with Christ! The Watchtower’s doctrine would have the majority of Jesus’ followers excluded from the New Covenant and the full rights of God’s children. Indeed, the Watchtower explicitly admits that the “great crowd” is not in the New Covenant; they teach that Jesus is Mediator only for the 144,000 “anointed” and not for the rest of mankind. A 1979 Watchtower stated bluntly: “Jesus Christ is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind. He is the Mediator between ... Jehovah God, and the nation of spiritual Israel [144,000]” (Why the Watchtower teaches that Jesus is not Your Mediator). The others, it says, only receive benefits indirectly by associating with the 144,000 (Why the Watchtower teaches that Jesus is not Your Mediator). This is a startling departure from biblical Christianity. St. Paul joyfully declares, “There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:5–6). There is no hint that most Christians must go through an elite priestly class to access Christ’s mediation. All who come to Christ in faith have direct access to God’s grace (Romans 5:1–2). The Watchtower’s two-class system effectively denies millions of sincere believers the full intimacy with Christ that He died to give them – a move that truly “devalues and restricts the ransom,” to use Furuli’s words.
- Contrary to Church Teaching and Ancient Tradition: The uniform tradition of the Church has been that all the saved will enjoy heaven (the beatific vision of God), even though ultimately God will also renew creation (“a new heavens and a new earth,” cf. 2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1). There is no precedent in Christian history for the idea that some Christians do not need to be “born again” or that they should not receive the Eucharist (JWs forbid the “other sheep” from partaking in Communion). Such divisions are alien to the Gospel. Jesus prayed for all believers to be one (John 17:20–23) and shared the same Bread of Life with all who followed Him (John 6:51). The early Church taught that through baptism, every Christian is regenerated as a child of God and destined for glory. As St. Peter wrote to the entire Christian community: “Blessed be God… who has begotten us anew to a living hope… to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you” (1 Peter 1:3–4). All the faithful are promised this heavenly inheritance. No Church Father ever taught a doctrinal split in which the majority of Christians would live forever on earth separated from Christ’s throne. On the contrary, for example St. Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd century wrote, “All Christ’s faithful people … are by virtue of our Lord’s passion destined for the crown of heavenly life,” affirming the universal heavenly hope of believers (see Epistle 51 for context).
In sum, the Watchtower’s two-class salvation model is inconsistent with both Scripture and the historic Christian consensus. By limiting full mediation and heavenly life to 144,000 individuals, the doctrine diminishes the universality of Christ’s saving work. The Catholic Church rejects this elitist scheme: Christ died to make all who believe in Him “a kingdom of priests for God” (Revelation 5:9-10) and to open the gates of heaven for all His people. As Furuli correctly notes, the current Governing Body’s teaching implies that billions will never get the chance to benefit from the ransom – a notion completely at odds with God’s universal salvific will. The good news is that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13); there is no secondary class of semi-saved observers. All who truly belong to Christ have the same glorious hope.
“All” vs. “Many” – Harmony in Greek and Theology
Some confusion arises from biblical passages that use the term “many” in connection with Christ’s sacrifice, notably Jesus’ own words at the Last Supper and in Mark 10:45: “the Son of Man came… to give His life as a ransom for many (Greek: polýs).” Does “many” contradict the verses that say “all”? By no means. In the original languages and in Catholic understanding, “many” and “all” are not opposed in this context – they are complementary perspectives on the same truth.
In biblical usage, “many” can be a semitic expression for a great multitude, without implying a limited few. For example, St. Paul in Romans 5 uses “many” and “all” interchangeably when explaining salvation in Christ: “By one man’s trespass, many died… and the free gift abounded for many” (Rom 5:15), then a few verses later, “one act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men” (Rom 5:18). The “many” who died through Adam clearly refers to all people (everyone dies in Adam), and likewise the “many” who will be made righteous through Christ refers to all who are in Christ (potentially all humanity). Thus, in Paul’s usage polýs (“many”) does not exclude universality – it often emphasizes the great number of those included. Early Watchtower commentary itself once noted that both Adam’s family and Christ’s family can be described as “many” , underscoring that “the many” can mean the entirety of a group (all in Adam, all in Christ).
Catholic theology teaches that “many” in these texts is practically synonymous with “all,” viewed from a different angle. The Catechism explains, when Jesus says “ransom for many,” this term “is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the one unique person of the Redeemer” (CCC 605). In other words, “many” emphasizes that a multitude – the human race – benefited from the one sacrifice of the one Christ. It is Christ (one) vs. the many (the rest of us). There is no contradiction between “Christ died for all” and “Christ died for many,” because “all of us” are indeed “the many.” Even John Calvin (often cited for a more limited view of the atonement) acknowledged in his commentary on Matthew 20:28 that “The word ‘many’ is not put for any definite number, but for a large number, for he contrasts himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15… [Paul] embraces the whole human race.” (exegesis - Did Jesus die for all? Is “for many” the same meaning as “for all “ in Matthew 26:28? - Christianity Stack Exchange). The “many” means basically “the masses.”
Furthermore, the liturgical language of the Church has long said Christ’s blood was shed “for you and for many,” and this has always been understood in Catholic teaching to mean all, even if not all accept it. A 9th-century Church council taught: “Jesus Christ…died for all; and all (as far as depended on Him) are saved” (Council of Quiercy, AD 853). St. Prosper of Aquitaine similarly wrote, “The Savior has shed His blood for all; and all are called to be saved.” Thus, when we read “many” in Scripture, we interpret it as the biblical idiom that it is – an expression emphasizing the plentiful fruit of Christ’s death, not a limitation of it.
To summarize: “all” means every single person, and “many” means the great multitude of those people – in effect, the same group viewed collectively. The Catholic Church reconciles these terms by affirming that Christ died for all people (1 Tim 2:6, 2 Cor 5:15) (1 Timothy 2:4-6 - who wants all people to be saved and to come to a ...) (2 Corinthians 5:15 - And he died for all, that those who live should no...), and indeed for “the many” who will benefit. If there is any distinction, it is that “all” speaks to the sufficiency of Christ’s ransom for everyone, while “many” speaks to the efficacy for those who actually receive it. But even here, “many” should be understood in the widest possible sense: Christ’s blood is able to save the multitude of humanity – no one was left out of His loving sacrifice (CCC 605). The Church echoes St. Paul: “One has died for all”, and “He is the expiation for the sins of the whole world.” There is no internal conflict in Scripture on this point once we grasp the language. Any suggestion that “many” implies Christ did not die for certain people is definitively rejected by Catholic exegesis and magisterial teaching (CCC 605). Christ’s heart and arms were stretched out on the cross to embrace all of humanity.
Limiting the Ransom to “Only the Saved” Contradicts Scripture and Early Christianity
Furuli observes that the current Watchtower leadership effectively teaches that Jesus’ ransom sacrifice applies only to those who will ultimately be saved (in Watchtower terms, “only those who join Jehovah’s organization”). This idea – that Christ did not die for those who fail to attain salvation – is a form of what theologians call “limited atonement.” The Catholic Church flatly refutes this notion as unbiblical and contrary to the belief of the early Christians. The ransom is not restricted to a pre-selected set of people; rather, it was offered for all, even for those who sadly choose to reject it. Several points support this:
- Scripture teaches Christ died even for those who may refuse Him: The Bible provides examples indicating the scope of redemption includes even the lost. Consider 2 Peter 2:1, which speaks of false teachers who “deny the Master who bought them.” Here were individuals described as having been “bought” by Christ’s blood (a reference to the ransom), yet due to their denial of Christ they faced destruction. This shows that Jesus’s sacrifice covered even those who would later deny Him – He “bought” them as well, though they did not avail themselves of the gift. Likewise, Hebrews 10:29 warns of those who spurn the blood of Christ that sanctified them – indicating Christ’s blood was shed for them, though by apostasy they forfeit its benefit. God’s salvific will is universal (“[God] desires all men to be saved” – 1 Tim 2:4), but He also allows human free will to reject His grace. The fault lies not in the ransom’s extent, but in some people’s refusal. Thus the offer of salvation is universal even if the outcome is not universally accepted.
- Key texts explicitly contradict a restricted ransom: We have already seen 1 Timothy 2:4–6, Hebrews 2:9, and 2 Corinthians 5:14–15, all of which are emphatic that Jesus died for “all” or “everyone”. It is worth highlighting these again in context: “For the love of Christ impels us, because we are convinced that one has died for all, therefore all have died. And He died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who for their sake died and was raised” (2 Cor 5:14–15). St. Paul’s logic is that Christ’s death for all underpins the call of all to repentance. Similarly, Hebrews 2:9 proclaims that by God’s grace Christ “tasted death for everyone,” and 1 Timothy 2:6 that He “gave Himself as a ransom for all.” There is no qualifier in these verses limiting them to “all who believe” or “all who will be saved” – the statements are open-ended and all-encompassing. The Watchtower’s teaching that the ransom covers “only those who will be saved” runs directly counter to these scriptures. If God’s Word says Christ gave Himself for all, who are we to say otherwise? The early Christians certainly took these passages at face value: Jesus died for the sake of every person.
- Early Church belief in universal redemption: From the earliest centuries, Christians taught that Christ’s saving work was offered to all humanity, even though all do not accept it. St. Irenaeus, a 2nd-century Church Father, wrote: “He came to save all through means of Himself – all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants, children, youth, and old men.” (Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 22) - New Advent). While Irenaeus notes the requirement of being “born again to God” (i.e. baptism) to actually be saved, he is clear that Jesus’ coming was for all, at every stage of life. No one is excluded from His offer. Similarly, St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century taught that “the one Lamb of God died for all, to bring salvation to the whole world.” The idea that Christ did not die for some people (whether the “wicked ignorant” as the Watchtower claims, or any other subset) would have been anathema to the early Church. When heresies arose (much later in Christian history) suggesting a limited atonement, they were rejected. The Church’s constant teaching is voiced by St. John Chrysostom: “God so loved every human being that He gave His Son to death for every one.” Even when discussing why all are not saved, early writers like St. Augustine maintained: “Christ’s blood was shed for all, but not all will be saved by it.” The limitation is in human response, not in the divine act of redemption.
Therefore, restricting the ransom’s scope to “only those who will be saved” is a serious error. It contradicts explicit statements of Scripture and the mind of the Church through the ages. Such a restriction also poses troubling theological questions: if Jesus didn’t die for some people, how are they accountable for not being saved? Or how can God sincerely offer salvation to all (as verses like 1 Tim 2:4 and Titus 2:11 indicate) if the provision wasn’t even made for some? Catholic theology avoids these problems by holding both truths: Christ died for all, and not all choose to be saved. The fault is in man’s rejection, not in any insufficiency or limitation of the ransom. As the Council of Trent taught in response to Reformation debates: Jesus made “a universal atonement for the sins of the whole world.” No one is automatically excluded from the possibility of salvation wrought by Christ. This inclusive view of the ransom glorifies God’s mercy and underscores each person’s responsibility to respond.
Doctrinal Stability: Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Shifts vs. Catholic Consistency
Rolf Furuli’s article points out that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Governing Body has not always taught the same restrictive view it holds today. Early Watchtower theology (in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) actually was closer to the idea of universal redemption (though with a unique “second chance” twist in the Millennium). Furuli notes: “In the 20th century, the view of the Watchtower literature consistently was that Jesus by his death made a ransom sacrifice for all Adam’s descendants (1 Timothy 2:6). At present, the view of the Governing Body is that Jesus did not die for all Adam’s descendants, but for all sorts of Adam’s descendants, for those who will be saved.”. In other words, the Watchtower used to teach that Christ died for everyone, but more recently they have changed the wording to “all sorts of people” – a narrower interpretation – in order to justify their doctrine that billions of humans (such as the non-Witnesses who die at Armageddon) were never ransomed by Christ at all and will simply stay dead eternally. This represents a significant doctrinal shift, one that Furuli condemns as a betrayal of the ransom’s true value.
In contrast, the Catholic Church’s teaching on the scope of Christ’s ransom has been remarkably consistent for 2,000 years. From Scripture through the Church Fathers, through medieval theology, the Reformation era, and into the modern Catechism, the refrain is the same: Christ died for all. For example:
- The Council of Orange (529 AD) taught against a predestinarian heresy, affirming that “the redemptive price (pretium) of Christ’s blood was paid for all.”
- The medieval theologian St. Thomas Aquinas (13th c.) reiterated: “Christ’s passion is a sufficient atonement for the sins of all men.”
- The Council of Trent (16th c.), addressing certain Protestant errors, insisted on the universality of the atonement: “Though He died for all, not all receive the benefit” – again emphasizing the universal offer but the need for human cooperation.
- The Second Vatican Council (20th c.) stated: “Since Christ died for all (cf. Rom 8:32), and since the ultimate vocation of every person is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this Paschal Mystery” (Gaudium et Spes, §22). In short, every person is given the possibility of salvation in Christ, because the redemption is universal.
- And as we saw, the Catechism (1992) summarizes: “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.” (CCC 605).
This unbroken continuity in Catholic doctrine starkly contrasts with the Watchtower’s changes. The Jehovah’s Witness leadership, by revising their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:6 (“all” to “all sorts”) and by introducing the notion that perhaps Jesus didn’t die for all the billions who never become Witnesses, demonstrates an instability in teaching. Furuli rightly criticizes this as the Governing Body “explaining away” even Jesus’ words about certain people being resurrected, all to reduce the number of those saved and limit the ransom’s application. Such shifting sands are problematic: if one claims to be God’s sole channel of truth, frequent changes or reversals in fundamental doctrine cast doubt on that claim.
The Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has maintained a stable proclamation: “Christ Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all”. This consistency is not born of stubbornness, but of fidelity to the apostolic deposit of faith. The universality of Christ’s sacrifice is not up for negotiation or reinterpretation; it is part of the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). Where the Watchtower’s current teaching deviates from its own earlier stance and from historic Christianity, the Catholic position today is the same as it was in the first century: “Jesus Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and for the sins of the whole world.”
In essence, Furuli’s observation about the Watchtower’s change underscores a key point: truth does not change, and the true Gospel has always included the message of an unrestricted ransom. The Catholic Church’s unwavering teaching on this matter provides a reliable beacon. Those troubled by the oscillation of Jehovah’s Witness doctrine can take comfort in the Church’s rootedness in Scripture and Tradition, which together testify that God “did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all” (Romans 8:32).
Conclusion: One Ransom for All – Affirming Catholic Truth
In refuting the errors addressed by Rolf Furuli, we come full circle to the beautiful truth at the heart of Christianity: Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, gave His life as a ransom for the salvation of all humanity. This truth, far from being “devalued or restricted,” is exalted in Catholic teaching. We conclude by reaffirming the key points in line with Scripture, the Catechism, and the Church Fathers:
- Universal Saving Will: God “wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). Out of love for the entire world, He sent Jesus to be our Redeemer. No person is created for damnation; each is invited to eternal life.
- Complete Ransom Paid: “Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering to God” (Eph 5:2). The price of our freedom was nothing less than the blood of the Lamb of God. This ransom is fully sufficient to cover every sin of every soul. As the Catechism states: Jesus “affirms that he came ‘to give his life as a ransom for many’; … The Church…teaches that Christ died for all men without exception” (CCC 605). Our debt was paid in full – Tetelestai (“It is finished!” John 19:30).
- One Covenant, One People: By that ransom, Christ established the New Covenant in His blood (Luke 22:20) and opened the way for all to become children of God. All who accept Christ in faith and baptism are truly part of His Body and destined for heavenly glory. There is no secondary class of Christians left out of Christ’s mediation or relegated to a lesser hope; “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). The 144,000 in Revelation symbolize the fullness of God’s people, and the “great multitude” are the same redeemed people seen from another angle – not a separate group with a lesser salvation. The Church Fathers unanimously understood the 144,000 as a symbolic number representing all the elect. St. Augustine, for example, taught that the 144,000 sealed in Revelation signify the entirety of the Church in its perfect totality (12x12x1000). All the saved will stand together before God’s throne.
- Consistency of Faith: Unlike novel interpretations that come and go, the Catholic Church guards the deposit of faith intact. St. Paul told Timothy to “guard what has been entrusted to you” (1 Tim 6:20), and the Church has done so regarding the doctrine of the atonement. From antiquity we can quote St. Gregory the Great: “Our Redeemer has paid the debt which He did not owe for our sake who owed a debt we could not pay.” And from the Catechism today: “By his loving obedience to the Father, ‘unto death, even death on a cross’ (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfilled the atoning mission of the Suffering Servant, who ‘makes himself an offering for sin’, bearing ‘the sin of many’, and who ‘shall make many to be accounted righteous’ (Isaiah 53:10-12)” (CCC 623). In every age, the Church echoes Scripture: One perfect sacrifice has redeemed all of Adam’s children.
As Catholics, we rejoice that the ransom paid by Christ knows no partiality or limit. Any teaching that diminishes this truth – whether by mistranslating “all” as “all sorts,” or by denying full participation in Christ to the majority of believers – must be firmly rejected. We uphold what the Apostle Peter preached: “You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Peter 1:18-19). Precious blood, indeed – shed for every one of us.
In the words of the early Christian St. Clement of Rome (1st century): “Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how precious it is unto His Father, because poured out for our salvation it brought the grace of repentance to all the world”. The ransom sacrifice of Jesus is infinitely valuable and offered to all the world. This is the unchanging faith of the Catholic Church, to God’s eternal glory.
15
Can someone remind me the reason's you could be disfellowshipped?
by SydBarrett in
1. jw
2. friends
the only reasons i can remember are smoking, sexual immorality and of course, apostasy.

there must be others but having been out since 1990, i'm drawing a blank.

i was thinking perhaps serious criminal offenses that result in prison, but then i remembered a brother in my congregation in the 1980's who went to prison.
aqwsed12345
The reasons one can be disfellowshipped (now officially referred to as being “removed from the congregation”) as a Jehovah’s Witness are far broader and more invasive than just smoking, sexual immorality, or apostasy. The judicial system within the organization is secretive, punitive, and often arbitrary. Below is a categorized list based on the organization’s own literature and internal elder manuals, highlighting just how extensive and oppressive the rules are.

Moral and Sexual Conduct
1. Fornication (any sex outside of marriage)
2. Adultery (even remarriage without “scriptural” divorce)
3. Homosexual activity
4. Oral or anal sex (even within marriage)
5. Cybersex / phone sex
6. Pornography use (especially "hardcore")
7. Incest or bestiality
8. Dating while not “scripturally free” to remarry
Spiritual "Crimes"
1. Apostasy (disagreeing with Watchtower teachings—even privately)
2. Celebrating birthdays or holidays (including Christmas, Easter, etc.)
3. Accepting a blood transfusion
4. Spiritism / occultism / hypnosis
5. Idolatry (e.g., bowing before religious statues)
6. Interfaith activities (including entering churches)
7. Praying or singing hymns in another religion
Social Infractions and Attitudes
1. Association with disfellowshipped individuals (even family)
2. Publicly criticizing a disfellowshipping decision
3. Gambling
4. Drunkenness
5. Gluttony
6. Greed or extortion
7. Laziness, dirtiness, or being "meddlesome"
8. Verbally abusive behavior
9. Brazen conduct (disrespectful attitude toward WT rules)
10. Lying
Medical / Ethical Violations
1. Blood transfusions (even if life-saving)
2. Working in an abortion clinic, selling cigarettes, etc.
3. Performing abortions or supporting someone who does
4. Refusal to provide for family members
5. Professional boxing (because it’s considered violent)
Political and National “Disloyalties”
1. Voting in political elections
2. Joining the military or government service
3. Political activism or nationalistic behavior
4. Subversive or antigovernment activity
Criminal Behavior
1. Theft
2. Fraud
3. Physical assault (if persistent and unrepentant)
4. Child sexual abuse (though often mishandled internally)
5. Murder or manslaughter
Disassociation (Self-Removal) Triggers Shunning Too
You don’t even have to commit any of the above. You can be shunned for:
- Formally resigning from the religion.
- Associating with another church or faith.
- Taking a blood transfusion, even once.
- Joining the military or police.
Even Employment Can Get You Shunned
You can be disfellowshipped for working at:
- A church (even as a janitor)
- A military base
- A hospital that performs abortions
- A store that sells tobacco or lottery tickets
The System Is Secretive and Harsh
- Judicial hearings are held in secret with no recordings, no observers, and the committee serves as judge, jury, and executioner.
- A person can be disfellowshipped for persisting in a private belief that differs from the Watchtower's doctrine—even if they never speak about it.
- Failure to report someone else’s “serious sin” can also lead to punishment.
What About Domestic Violence?
As you noted: No, beating your wife won’t automatically get you disfellowshipped. If you deny the allegations or claim repentance, many elders may give only “reproof.” The organization has been repeatedly criticized for turning a blind eye to abuse—unless it meets their internal "two-witness rule."

Final Thoughts
The Jehovah’s Witness judicial system is not about justice or spiritual restoration—it’s about control, fear, and conformity. Many have been shunned, isolated, and psychologically harmed for infractions as minor as celebrating a birthday or holding a different opinion. Disfellowshipping isn't about sin—it's about disobedience to the organization.
225
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
aqwsed12345

Is Jesus Merely a "Corresponding Ransom"?
A Catholic Refutation of Watchtower Theology on 1 Timothy 2:6
Jehovah’s Witnesses have long built a foundational doctrine on a misreading of one biblical phrase: “a corresponding ransom” (1 Timothy 2:6, New World Translation). According to the Watchtower Society, Jesus had to be exactly equal to Adam—no more, no less. Hence, they argue, Christ could not be divine, could not have been raised in a human body, and could not offer more than the mere restoration of Adam’s lost condition. But this theology collapses under serious exegetical, theological, and philosophical scrutiny. In this article, we will expose the fatal flaws of this Watchtower doctrine and offer a Catholic response rooted in Scripture, reason, and the true dignity of Christ’s redemptive work.

1. A Fabricated Phrase, a Faulty Foundation
Let’s start with the obvious: the phrase “corresponding ransom” is not found in the original Greek of 1 Timothy 2:6. The Greek word used is ἀντίλυτρον (antilytron)—a term meaning “ransom in place of,” not “ransom equal to in value.” The Watchtower inserts the word “corresponding” to smuggle in a doctrine that reduces Christ to a mere Adam 2.0.
But the word antilytron does not convey an ontological equivalence. It signifies substitution, not sameness of nature or value. The prefix anti- simply expresses that Christ gave His life in place of others—not that He had to match Adam’s nature tit-for-tat. Even the Greek scholar Parkhurst, whose outdated lexicon is the Watchtower’s sole source for this rendering, never defines the word with the theological precision the Society demands. Modern Greek lexicons, such as BDAG and the Concise Greek-English Lexicon, universally define antilytron as “ransom”—with no implication of exact equivalency.
The Watchtower’s argument is built on a word they mistranslated, defined wrongly, and misunderstood entirely.

2. The Watchtower’s Legalism: A Transaction Without Love
According to the Society, Christ’s death was a legal transaction: one perfect man (Jesus) dies in place of another (Adam) to balance the cosmic scales. But this cold, mechanistic view of salvation distorts the biblical message.
Let’s be clear: sin is not just a legal error; it is an offense against a personal, infinite God. The gravity of sin is not rooted in the worth of Adam, but in the worth of the One whom Adam offended. That’s why Psalm 49:7-8 says: “Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life.” A mere man cannot satisfy the demands of divine justice. Only God can offer to God what is owed to God.
This is why Christ’s divinity is essential. As Colossians 2:9 declares, “In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” The New World Translation corrupts this verse into “the fullness of divine quality,” erasing the clear affirmation of Jesus' divinity. But no “divine quality” can ransom humanity. Only God in the flesh could achieve that.

3. A Spirit Resurrection? Then Jesus Didn’t Ransom Anything
The Watchtower claims that Jesus gave up his human life forever—meaning he was resurrected as a spirit creature, not in a human body. But Paul contradicts this explicitly. In 1 Timothy 2:5–6, Paul writes:
“There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.”
If Jesus gave himself—and if he didn't get himself back—then there is no risen Jesus. But Paul affirms that Jesus is still the man, not was. The glorified Christ is still fully human. Paul says the same in Acts 17:31: “[God] will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed.” The man, not a ghost.
Furthermore, Jesus Himself said:
“I lay down my life that I may take it up again.” (John 10:17)
Jehovah’s Witnesses twist this to mean Jesus merely had the right to take it up, but chose not to. This is grammatical nonsense. The Greek construction (hina labō) expresses purpose, not permission. Jesus laid down his life in order to take it up again. His death was not a dead-end, but a gateway to victorious resurrection. A ransom that ends in permanent death is not a victory—it’s a loss.

4. Redemption: Restoration or Glorification?
The Watchtower insists that Jesus merely restored what Adam lost—perfect human life on Earth. This is a tragic reduction of the Gospel. Christ did not just restore Eden; He opened Heaven. As Paul writes:
“If many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift… abounded for many.” (Romans 5:15)
The “ransom” of Christ is not a mere transaction that returns us to a pre-fall state. It is an elevation—a participation in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). The grace of Christ doesn’t just undo Adam’s failure—it ushers humanity into communion with God Himself. The Catholic doctrine of the felix culpa ("happy fault") celebrates this: Adam’s fall, though tragic, led to the greater good of the Incarnation.

5. Who Received the Ransom? A Question Jehovah’s Witnesses Can’t Answer
The Watchtower’s overly literal view of the ransom creates a theological nightmare: To whom was the ransom paid? To Satan? That would mean God is subject to the devil’s demands. To God? That would imply God needs something He lacks.
This is the pitfall of hyper-literal ransom theories. The Bible uses redemption metaphorically, not as a financial or legal contract. Christ’s death was not a payment in a cosmic marketplace—it was a personal, sacrificial act of divine love. As Paul writes:
“God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5:8)

6. Trinitarian Love, Not Watchtower Transactionalism
Finally, the entire Watchtower framework collapses because it denies the Trinity. They present a God who sends a created being to pay off humanity’s debt like a heavenly accountant. But Catholic theology reveals something far more beautiful: the God who saves us is the One we offended. In Christ, God took on our nature, died in our place, and raised us to divine life.
As St. Augustine said: “The one who made us without us did not will to save us without us.” God didn’t outsource our salvation. He came Himself.
Only in the Trinity does this make sense. Only the Son can offer a perfect sacrifice to the Father, in the Spirit. Only God can satisfy God. And only if Jesus is God can we be truly saved.

Conclusion: The False Ransom of Watchtower Theology
The Watchtower’s doctrine of a “corresponding ransom” is a theological house of cards. It misreads Scripture, denies the divinity and bodily resurrection of Christ, and reduces salvation to a legal exchange rather than the divine drama of love and redemption.
Jesus did not come merely to restore Eden. He came to give us Heaven. He did not merely give us what Adam lost. He gave us what Adam never had: the indwelling of God, eternal life in communion with the Trinity.
The ransom of Christ is not “equal” to Adam. It infinitely surpasses him. Because Christ is not “no more and no less than a perfect man.” He is God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.
And He gave Himself for all.
“Thanks be to God for His inexpressible gift!” (2 Corinthians 9:15)

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.